Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Implementation of an electronic monitoring and ...

Links

Text available via DOI:

View graph of relations

Implementation of an electronic monitoring and evaluation system for the antiretroviral treatment programme in the Cape Winelands district, South Africa: a qualitative evaluation

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Published

Standard

Implementation of an electronic monitoring and evaluation system for the antiretroviral treatment programme in the Cape Winelands district, South Africa: a qualitative evaluation. / Myburgh, Hanlie; Murphy, Joshua P; van Huyssteen, Mea et al.
In: PLoS ONE, Vol. 10, No. 5, e0127223, 12.05.2015.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Harvard

Myburgh, H, Murphy, JP, van Huyssteen, M, Foster, N, Grobbelaar, CJ, Struthers, HE, McIntyre, JA, Hurter, T & Peters, RPH 2015, 'Implementation of an electronic monitoring and evaluation system for the antiretroviral treatment programme in the Cape Winelands district, South Africa: a qualitative evaluation', PLoS ONE, vol. 10, no. 5, e0127223. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0127223

APA

Myburgh, H., Murphy, J. P., van Huyssteen, M., Foster, N., Grobbelaar, C. J., Struthers, H. E., McIntyre, J. A., Hurter, T., & Peters, R. PH. (2015). Implementation of an electronic monitoring and evaluation system for the antiretroviral treatment programme in the Cape Winelands district, South Africa: a qualitative evaluation. PLoS ONE, 10(5), Article e0127223. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0127223

Vancouver

Myburgh H, Murphy JP, van Huyssteen M, Foster N, Grobbelaar CJ, Struthers HE et al. Implementation of an electronic monitoring and evaluation system for the antiretroviral treatment programme in the Cape Winelands district, South Africa: a qualitative evaluation. PLoS ONE. 2015 May 12;10(5):e0127223. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0127223

Author

Bibtex

@article{6e0bce7298094cf5a9f9996cc28ac39b,
title = "Implementation of an electronic monitoring and evaluation system for the antiretroviral treatment programme in the Cape Winelands district, South Africa: a qualitative evaluation",
abstract = "Background A pragmatic three-tiered approach to monitor the world{\textquoteright}s largest antiretroviral treatment (ART) programme was adopted by the South African National Department of Health in 2010. With the rapid expansion of the programme, the limitations of the paper-based register (tier 1) were the catalyst for implementation of the stand-alone electronic register (tier 2), which offers simple digitisation of the paper-based register. This article engages with theory on implementation to identify and contextualise enabling and constraining factors for implementation of the electronic register, to describe experiences and use of the register, and to make recommendations for implementation in similar settings where standardisation of ART monitoring and evaluation has not been achieved. Methods We conducted a qualitative evaluation of the roll-out of the register. This comprised twenty in-depth interviews with a diverse sample of stakeholders at facility, sub-district, and district levels of the health system. Facility-level participants were selected across five sub-districts, including one facility per sub-district. Responses were coded and analysed using a thematic approach. An implementation science framework guided interpretation of the data. Results & Discussion We identified the following seven themes: 1) ease of implementation, 2) perceived value of an electronic M&E system, 3) importance of stakeholder engagement, 4) influence of a data champion, 5) operational and logistical factors, 6) workload and role clarity, and 7) importance of integrating the electronic register with routine facility monitoring and evaluation. Interpreting our findings through an implementation theory enabled us to construct the scaffolding for implementation across the five facility-settings. This approach illustrated that implementation was not a linear process but occurred at two nodes: at the adoption of the register for roll-out, and at implementation at facility-level. Conclusion In this study we found that relative advantage of an intervention and stakeholder engagement are critical to implementation. We suggest that without these aspects of implementation, formative and summative outcomes of implementation at both the adoption and coalface stages of implementation would be negatively affected.",
author = "Hanlie Myburgh and Murphy, {Joshua P} and {van Huyssteen}, Mea and Nicola Foster and Grobbelaar, {Cornelius J} and Struthers, {Helen E} and McIntyre, {James A} and Theunis Hurter and Peters, {Remco PH}",
year = "2015",
month = may,
day = "12",
doi = "10.1371/journal.pone.0127223",
language = "English",
volume = "10",
journal = "PLoS ONE",
issn = "1932-6203",
publisher = "Public Library of Science",
number = "5",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Implementation of an electronic monitoring and evaluation system for the antiretroviral treatment programme in the Cape Winelands district, South Africa: a qualitative evaluation

AU - Myburgh, Hanlie

AU - Murphy, Joshua P

AU - van Huyssteen, Mea

AU - Foster, Nicola

AU - Grobbelaar, Cornelius J

AU - Struthers, Helen E

AU - McIntyre, James A

AU - Hurter, Theunis

AU - Peters, Remco PH

PY - 2015/5/12

Y1 - 2015/5/12

N2 - Background A pragmatic three-tiered approach to monitor the world’s largest antiretroviral treatment (ART) programme was adopted by the South African National Department of Health in 2010. With the rapid expansion of the programme, the limitations of the paper-based register (tier 1) were the catalyst for implementation of the stand-alone electronic register (tier 2), which offers simple digitisation of the paper-based register. This article engages with theory on implementation to identify and contextualise enabling and constraining factors for implementation of the electronic register, to describe experiences and use of the register, and to make recommendations for implementation in similar settings where standardisation of ART monitoring and evaluation has not been achieved. Methods We conducted a qualitative evaluation of the roll-out of the register. This comprised twenty in-depth interviews with a diverse sample of stakeholders at facility, sub-district, and district levels of the health system. Facility-level participants were selected across five sub-districts, including one facility per sub-district. Responses were coded and analysed using a thematic approach. An implementation science framework guided interpretation of the data. Results & Discussion We identified the following seven themes: 1) ease of implementation, 2) perceived value of an electronic M&E system, 3) importance of stakeholder engagement, 4) influence of a data champion, 5) operational and logistical factors, 6) workload and role clarity, and 7) importance of integrating the electronic register with routine facility monitoring and evaluation. Interpreting our findings through an implementation theory enabled us to construct the scaffolding for implementation across the five facility-settings. This approach illustrated that implementation was not a linear process but occurred at two nodes: at the adoption of the register for roll-out, and at implementation at facility-level. Conclusion In this study we found that relative advantage of an intervention and stakeholder engagement are critical to implementation. We suggest that without these aspects of implementation, formative and summative outcomes of implementation at both the adoption and coalface stages of implementation would be negatively affected.

AB - Background A pragmatic three-tiered approach to monitor the world’s largest antiretroviral treatment (ART) programme was adopted by the South African National Department of Health in 2010. With the rapid expansion of the programme, the limitations of the paper-based register (tier 1) were the catalyst for implementation of the stand-alone electronic register (tier 2), which offers simple digitisation of the paper-based register. This article engages with theory on implementation to identify and contextualise enabling and constraining factors for implementation of the electronic register, to describe experiences and use of the register, and to make recommendations for implementation in similar settings where standardisation of ART monitoring and evaluation has not been achieved. Methods We conducted a qualitative evaluation of the roll-out of the register. This comprised twenty in-depth interviews with a diverse sample of stakeholders at facility, sub-district, and district levels of the health system. Facility-level participants were selected across five sub-districts, including one facility per sub-district. Responses were coded and analysed using a thematic approach. An implementation science framework guided interpretation of the data. Results & Discussion We identified the following seven themes: 1) ease of implementation, 2) perceived value of an electronic M&E system, 3) importance of stakeholder engagement, 4) influence of a data champion, 5) operational and logistical factors, 6) workload and role clarity, and 7) importance of integrating the electronic register with routine facility monitoring and evaluation. Interpreting our findings through an implementation theory enabled us to construct the scaffolding for implementation across the five facility-settings. This approach illustrated that implementation was not a linear process but occurred at two nodes: at the adoption of the register for roll-out, and at implementation at facility-level. Conclusion In this study we found that relative advantage of an intervention and stakeholder engagement are critical to implementation. We suggest that without these aspects of implementation, formative and summative outcomes of implementation at both the adoption and coalface stages of implementation would be negatively affected.

U2 - 10.1371/journal.pone.0127223

DO - 10.1371/journal.pone.0127223

M3 - Journal article

VL - 10

JO - PLoS ONE

JF - PLoS ONE

SN - 1932-6203

IS - 5

M1 - e0127223

ER -